The Right To Self Defense; The United Nations HRC said

Human rights under the color of law, embraces many shrewd rules and regulations guided by strict jurisprudence of congressional appeal.

While these laws advocate the success and survival of human tranquilities, in all reasonable legalities it like many other case laws carries with it burdensome baggage, those of conflict and debate. In my search for legal comprehension I have recognized one such fact of debate that while the government has chosen to esteem itself over international laws by implementing preemptive strikes (declaring war on a country suspected of planning a war against this country) on other countries around the world (stating that it is self defense to do so) and has simultaneously prohibited the concept of self defense constitutionally available to its citizens by regulating laws which prescribes restrictive measures for gun control. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council declares that very severe gun control, more restrictive than even the laws of New York City--is a human right.

The issue is especially imperative today, as many international advocates of international gun prohibition are using the United Nations to deny and then eliminate the right of self-defense. For example, the General Assembly is creating an "Arms Trade Treaty" which would define arms sales to citizens in the United States as a human rights violation, because American law guarantees the right to use lethal force, when no lesser force will suffice, against a non-homicidal violent felony attack.

These issues is of paramount concern to all citizens as it opens Pandora's box exposing an array of foreseeable problems and distressing anxieties. I ask you as fellow citizens, does a woman have a human right to resist rape or murder? Do people have a human right to resist tyranny? The United Nations Human Rights Council has said no ”that international law recognizes no human right of self-defense. To the contrary, they (The United Nations Human Rights Council) have stated in so many uncertain terms that even though the government has the right to defend itself, and even against those who have not attacked them, you and I as citizens have no human right to protect ourselves against any attacker, regardless of intentions of any neighbor or possible assailant.

Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments which do not enact strict gun controls guilty of human rights violations? Well according to the United Nations international law has been reorganize so that apparent crimes of human violations would be authorized, making it a criminal offence should governments not restrict the use and availability of all guns to its citizens. The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms. Under international law, personal self-defense is a well-established human right and is an important foundation of international law itself as well as the constitution of America.

Since the 1990s, the United Nations has been focusing increasing attention on international firearms control. UN-backed programs have promoted and funded the surrender and confiscation of citizen firearms in nations all over the world. The United Nations helped subsidize the proponents of an October 2005 national gun confiscation referendum in Brazil. A subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that there is no human right to personal self-defense, and that extremely strict gun control (much stricter than the current laws in Washington, D.C., and New York City) is a human right which all governments are required to enforce immediately. The full Human Rights Council is expected take up the issue soon, and issue similar orders. The declaration implements a report for the HRC prepared by Special Rapporteur (a recorder appointed by a committee to prepare reports of the meetings, the rapporteur is responsible, on behalf of the appropriate committee, for ensuring that the process has been carried out) in this case Barbara Frey.

With all due respect to law and order it is about time that all citizens recognize the possibility that something isn't too right in Denmark (our country and around the world) and begin to take notice of more important issues concerning all of us than just who plays the best ball or who wears the best dress. Obviously it is not terrorism that we are facing because so many lies have be put forth by the government that we have been forced to accept many uncertainties while functioning as though nothing was afoot within our system.. It is categorically important that we all investigate what our government is doing and what is happing internationally as these decisions will affect the future of our children and our supposed liberated lives.

Self-defense: Turns out what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at Columbia was oh so correct according to the latest and greatest in US Intell. No nukkie bombs there or capability for another ten or so years. So he and King George both did a good job of Mock The Fool, the fool here being George W Bush.
Then the Supreme Court attorney just asked the Justices if George is a King or a President. A King above The Rule of Law, or a President subject to the United States Constitution. It was during the case for the "detainees." They have no self-defense. Lucky for them and us, someone is trying to defend them.
Savvy Mate